alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:12-cr-5

Jimmy R. Crawford, Jr. 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 25) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the information, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: February 2, 2012 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:12-cr-00005-JLG Doc #: 27 Filed: 02/02/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 45139.

#### Protests 938900-G, etc., of Max Gross, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar to that the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
Before the Second Division,

May 1, 1952

No. 56608.

protests 170668-K and 175250-K (New York).

#### A. Newburg & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *B. Shackman & Co.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 111, C. D. 1309), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 179 

To provide for oversight over the Capitol Visitors Center by the Architect 

of the Capitol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 22, 2005 

Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. DODD, Mr. FRIST, Mr. REID, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. 

DURBIN, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. ALLARD) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

RESOLUTION 

To provide for oversight over the Capitol Visitors Center 

by the Architect of the Capitol. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Architect of the Capitol shall 

4 have the responsibility for the facilities management and 

5 operations of the Capitol Visitor Center. 

6 (b) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.—The Architect of the 

7 Capitol may appoint an Executive Director of the Capitol 

8 Visitor Center whose annual rate of pay shall be deter9 mined by the Architect of the Capitol and shall not exceed 
2 

•SRES 179 IS 

1 $1,500 less than the annual rate of pay for the Architect 

2 of the Capitol. 

3 (c) CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.—The responsibil4 ities of the Architect of the Capitol under this section shall 

5 be subject to congressional oversight by the Committee on 

6 Rules and Administration of the Senate and as determined 

7 separately by the House of Representatives. 

8 (d) CAPITOL PRESERVATION COMMISSION JURISDIC9 TION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to re10 move the jurisdiction of the Capitol Preservation Commis11 sion. 

Æ
Case: 2:12-cv-01095-TPK Doc #: 21 Filed: 05/08/13 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T21:48:02-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
# Official Journal C 61/11 M

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 61 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4811 March 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 61

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4811 March 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 061/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 061/2 | Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3734 — Ericsson/H3G) (1) | 2 |
| 2005/C 061/3 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3709 — Orkla/Elkem) (1) | 3 |
| 2005/C 061/4 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3556 — Fortis/BCP) (1) | 3 |
| 2005/C 061/5 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3576 — ECT/PONL/Euromax) (1) | 4 |
| 2005/C 061/6 | Commission Communication pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Modification by Ireland of a public service obligation in respect of scheduled air services between Galway/Na Minna and the Aran Islands (1) | 5 |
| 2005/C 061/7 | New national side of euro circulation coins | 6 |
| 2005/C 061/8 | New national side of euro circulation coins | 7 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 061/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 061/2

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3734 — Ericsson/H3G) (1)

2

2005/C 061/3

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3709 — Orkla/Elkem) (1)

3

2005/C 061/4

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3556 — Fortis/BCP) (1)

3

2005/C 061/5

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3576 — ECT/PONL/Euromax) (1)

4

2005/C 061/6

Commission Communication pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Modification by Ireland of a public service obligation in respect of scheduled air services between Galway/Na Minna and the Aran Islands (1)

5

2005/C 061/7

New national side of euro circulation coins

6

2005/C 061/8

New national side of euro circulation coins

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
No. 64325.

protests 59/22468, etc. (Detroit).

#### John V. Carr & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Official Journal C 239/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.239.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 239 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 559 August 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.239.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 239

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 559 August 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 239/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 239/01

Euro exchange rates

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 239/02 | Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain stainless steel bars and rods originating in India | 2 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 239/03 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 5 |
| 2012/C 239/04 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 9 |
| 2012/C 239/05 | Publication of an application for registration pursuant to Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed | 13 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2012/C 239/02

Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain stainless steel bars and rods originating in India

2

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2012/C 239/03

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

5

2012/C 239/04

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

9

2012/C 239/05

Publication of an application for registration pursuant to Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed

13

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Cancer MIR Cancer Incidence Noncancer Max HI Target Organ NEI11753 3.18E-08 1.71E-06 7.06E-03 neurological NEI12308 1.01E-07 1.10E-05 1.13E-03 developmental NEI32636 1.06E-05 4.51E-04 8.61E-02 respiratory NEI7836 2.29E-07 1.48E-05 7.58E-03 neurological NEI8456 5.39E-07 8.19E-05 7.88E-03 neurological NEI8627 1.65E-07 1.12E-04 1.59E-03 respiratory NEIWIT$8308 2.82E-07 1.94E-05 7.05E-03 respiratory

1 BOLD indicates a cancer risk great than 1 in a million or a noncancer HI greater than 1 Facility NEI ID Source Category Chronic Risk 1 Table 2a – Maximum Predicted HEM-3 Chronic Risks (Mineral Wool Production)

1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                 2,021
<SECURITIES>                                           4,827
<RECEIVABLES>                                          7,362
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                            5,094
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      20,290
<PP&E>                                               110,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                        40,620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       101,334
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  8,267
<BONDS>                                               31,682
<COMMON>                                               2,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                            23,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         101,334
<SALES>                                               14,341
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      29,488
<CGS>                                                  9,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         18,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     1,967
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          428
<INCOME-TAX>                                             192
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      236
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                             236
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.18


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7269

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BRYAN CHRISTOPHER SAMUEL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T. S. Ellis, III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:14

- cr
- 00351

- TSE

- 1; 1:17

- cv
- 01432

- TSE )

Submitted : February 20, 2020 Decided: February 24, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING , Circuit Judge , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Bryan Christopher Samuel, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bryan Christopher Samuel appeals the district cou rt’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion and denying it on that basis. * Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Samue l’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 225 5
motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization
from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § § 2244(b)(3)(A) , 2255(h) (201 8 ); McRae , 793 F.3d at 397

- 400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Samuel’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon revi ew, we conclude that Samuel’s claims
do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized , successive § 2255 motion. United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).
# C_2008302EN.01S00301.xml

| 25.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
| (logo) NTS NATIONAL

TAX SEARCH, LLC | 130 S. Jefferson, Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60661

312-233-6440 |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OFCOMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S REGULATIONAB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

For the calendar year endingDecember 31, 2016, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for **WellsFargo Bank** (the “Servicer”).

 

National Tax Search, LLC(“NTS”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31,2016 and for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the“Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the“CFR”). NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS bythe Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Onlyservicing criteria 1122 (d) (l)(ii), 1122 (d)1(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the “ApplicableServicing Criteria”) are applicable to the activities NTS performs withrespect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS has determined that theremaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the SEC RegulationAB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to thetransactions covered by this report. The transactions covered by this reportinclude all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTS’s TaxQsystem (the “Platform Transactions”).

 

NTS, as a vendor, has assessedits compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Periodand has concluded that NTS has complied, in all material respects, with theApplicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2016 and for the ReportingPeriod with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

 

Plante& Moran, PLLC, anindependent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation reporton the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December31, 2016 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

 

National Tax Search, LLC, asVendor to Servicer

 

 

/s/ Lori D. Eshoo

Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO 

January 23, 2017
# C_2008232EN.01000201.xml

| 10.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 September 2008

(2008/C 232/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4144 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 152,90 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4569 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80300 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4684 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5995 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 127,29 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0330 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,768 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 239,23 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7040 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,4515 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5835 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 30,265 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7298 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7387 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5030 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,0318 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0970 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0235 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 551,60 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,1663 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6718 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,1332 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 182,21 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8783 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 66,060 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 36,1315 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,860 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4591 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 14,8194 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4144

JPY

Japanese yen

152,90

DKK

Danish krone

7,4569

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80300

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4684

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5995

ISK

Iceland króna

127,29

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0330

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,768

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

239,23

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7040

PLN

Polish zloty

3,4515

RON

Romanian leu

3,5835

SKK

Slovak koruna

30,265

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7298

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7387

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5030

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,0318

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0970

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0235

KRW

South Korean won

1 551,60

ZAR

South African rand

11,1663

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6718

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,1332

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 182,21

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8783

PHP

Philippine peso

66,060

RUB

Russian rouble

36,1315

THB

Thai baht

48,860

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4591

MXN

Mexican peso

14,8194

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Order entered December 7 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00391 - CR No. 05 - 20 - 0039 2 - CR NATHANAEL JACE MIXON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On A ppeal from the 195t h Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 15 - 42179 - N & F1 6 - 41127 - N

O RDER Before the C ourt is appellant ’ s Dec e m ber 4, 2020 motion for an e xtension o f time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER app ellant ’ s brief due by December 1 8 , 2020

. / s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

GREGORY YOUNG, II,

Petitioner,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. C2-11-775

 JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Respondent. MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORAH MCCANN KING

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or

trial.

Pursuant to the ORDER filed October 12, 2011, JUDGMENT is hereby entered

DISMISSING this action.

Date: October 12, 2011 JAMES BONINI, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:11-cv-00775-EAS-NMK Doc #: 23 Filed: 10/12/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD A. TANGWALL, Individually 

and in his capacity as Trustee of the Toni 1 

Trust, 

Appellant, 

 v. 

LARRY D. COMPTON, 

Appellee.

No. 19-35370 

D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00031-SLG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Donald A. Tangwall appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

affirming the bankruptcy court’s order rejecting his proposed filing pursuant to a 

vexatious litigant order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 16 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court and 

apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. Motor Vehicle 

Cas. 5 Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869, 

879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Tangwall’s 

proposed filing because the filing was within the scope of the vexatious litigant 

order and Tangwall failed to comply with the requirements set forth in the 

vexatious litigant order. See In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000) (a 

district court has discretion to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a 

vexatious litigant pre-filing order).

To the extent that Tangwall seeks to challenge the underlying vexatious 

litigant order or the merits of the underlying bankruptcy proceedings, we do not 

consider his contentions because they are outside the scope of this appeal. 

Tangwall’s request to combine cases and his motion to consolidate appeals

are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
(Reap. Dec. 9771)

#### Aircargo Brokerage Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. M-235, etc.

(Decided August 17, 1960)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of this decision, were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.